ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Tax Day Secret -- Democrats Lowered Your Taxes!

[ Posted Thursday, April 15th, 2010 – 23:41 UTC ]

So I got my taxes done on time. Two whole hours early, if truth be told. Yes, I am one of those "wait until the last minute" type of guys, I admit. Which is why Thursday's column is being posted now, too (although I hasten to point out that it is still Thursday, in my time zone at least).

But, aside from the procrastinatory habits of yours truly, I did notice something while doing my taxes that bears commenting upon. Actually, I did not notice it, but rather someone else pointed it out to me -- and therein lies the problem.

My wife and I got an eight hundred dollar tax break this year. In fact, almost everybody got this break -- four hundred bucks per person. Apparently, it was passed as part of the stimulus package last year. I do remember, at the time, hearing something about how Obama's stimulus changed people's take-home pay by readjusting the federal withholding figures, but I had no idea it would turn into eight hundred bucks back on my tax form.

Now, I follow politics rather closely. While I am no tax expert, and I do not write about taxes every day (or even every month), I do tend to keep an eye out for large tax breaks when politicians are handing them out. But I have to admit, I missed this one. If I hadn't heard about it from a casual conversation with someone who had already finished their taxes, I likely would have missed it altogether (for anyone who has yet to finish their taxes, check out 1040 Schedule M -- the "Making Work Pay Tax Credit").

This, to be blunt, is a massive failure of communication on the part of the Democrats. President Obama and all the Democrats in Congress couldn't even get the message out to me that there was a massive freebie in this year's taxes (and, I've heard rumored, next year's as well), just waiting to be claimed. And I watch these folks pretty closely. It made me wonder how many people had missed this juicy $400-a-person tax credit. Of course, the I.R.S. may adjust the taxes of anyone who forgot to claim it (I've already heard stories of people being pleasantly surprised at getting an extra $400 or $800 back that they had no idea they were entitled to receive). But that's not the point.

The point is, if politicians are going to bribe most of America by kicking back hundreds of dollars to them on tax day, it might be a good idea to tell people about it. "Democrats passed the stimulus last year, which will lower taxes on almost every working American by $400 per person or $800 per couple this year. Democrats did this. Democrats lowered your taxes, America. Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress stand for lower taxes." I mean, how hard is that to say? They've had a full year to brag about this, and yet I've heard nary a peep.

Which is why I say this is primarily a failure to communicate on the part of the Democrats. Which I will have a lot more to say about tomorrow (consider this late-night rant a preamble...). But I just wanted to let people know (since Democrats obviously can't manage to do so) -- if you enjoyed getting your extra four hundred bucks back this year, then thank President Obama, and thank the Democrats who voted for the stimulus package. Even if they are trying to keep it a big secret, for some unfathomable reason.

 

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

51 Comments on “Tax Day Secret -- Democrats Lowered Your Taxes!”

  1. [1] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You make a good point, Chris, that Democrats should make this a standard talking point.

    But if no one is willing to report on this, who will believe it?

    I tried to search this morning for an article I saw yesterday about how even the Cato Institute doesn't believe the Obama administration has levied a "crushing tax burden".

    It was hard to find. This story seems to be well buried in places like the Raleigh Examiner, the Lexington Post and at online sites.

    The AP picked up the tax story, but neglected a lot of these points and focused almost solely on telling the conservative side.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iL6Ni7MbsiD7C3kygjRlJIpeJ6RQD9F38C601

    They neglected to include any information from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities about how the average family of four pays only 4.6 percent of income in family taxes.

    Instead, they interviewed Grover Norquist and Orrin Hatch and threw around a lot of numbers that make it sound like your taxes are going up though they never show how this is going to happen.

    The main story I found when looking through yesterday's news seemed to be a giant ad for the Tea Party in which they were allowed to speak their talking points with very little questioning from reporters.

    By contrast, any time Democrats try to make a case based on the fact that they've actually reduced taxes, the corporate media slants the story in favor of conservatives.

    It is the 2 conservatives for every other voice rule that the corporate networks have adopted:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/05/29/yellin

    Look for it in your corporate media today!

    Look at most articles coming from the AP and compare the percentage of time spent on conservative talking points, this is pretty accurate. They tend to get about 2 paragraphs for every 1 progressives get. And not only that, but they tend to skew the articles to discredit the paragraph progressives do get. The AP article above is a perfect example.

    With this type of coverage, is it any wonder folks in the Tea Party think Democrats have raised taxes?

    -David

    p.s. Apologies as I know this is a particular nit about the lack of any analysis in our news, but I find it truly sad that I have to go to the Guardian UK for analysis that is not simply 1 Democratic talking point refuted by 2 conservatives with some misleading statistics thrown in.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/15/tax-day-us-europe

  2. [2] 
    GlynnisI wrote:

    We did our taxes as soon as we had all the forms and when I saw the deposit in our checking account we'd received $800 more than anticipated. I was pleasantly surprised, but confused. I called my Dad who is a CPA and asked if he had a clue. Dear Dad is a die-hard Republican/Fox News devotee, so he replied "that's from your President." I couldn't help but laugh and reply, "I guess my President is more modest than yours was, Dad. When W gave me a check it was preceded by trumpet heralds, multiple notices and other expensive fanfare." Dad only "humph"ed a reply.

    I did receive a notice of the correction a few weeks after the fact. It said that the correction had been made for us this once as it was new, but we'd have to include Schedule M ourselves in filing next year.

    I can't help but think that Obama's approval ratings would be higher if he'd only encourage us to give him a little more credit for what he does.

    Humph, indeed! ;)

  3. [3] 
    Hawk Owl wrote:

    Akin to this, I've remembered for over a year an interview with the author [name?] pf "Talking Right"
    who opined that the Dems had not yet learned to go for
    direct, simple language that struck emotional chords in voters.
    Your example only confirms this, alas, once again. They never responded to "Death Taxes," "Death Panels," etc. with a counterpunch.
    Another example would be the Dems' tepid responses to the lack of "CIVILITY" in the Senate.
    "CIVILITY"? this is not a rallying cry. If only Obama would recur to, over & over his insight in the State of the Union address by repeaating, and repeating "They're not getting any WORK done."
    Working class people, middle class people will
    respond to that one. WORK taps into the old American Work Ethic". . . I want to see Obama declaiming "When is the Senate going to go to WORK!"
    ("and stop posturing for the next election" is, of course, the subtext.)

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, David..

    For someone who is always saying that this is NOT a "right vs left" issue, you sure rail against the right alot.

    It's a forgone conclusion that the MSM is in the bag for the Left..

    One only has to look at the passage of CrapCare to know this is true.

    If THAT doesn't convince anyone who is truly objective, then take a look at the Media Tea Party analysis posted previously.

    If THAT is still not enough then I would have to say someone checked their objectivity at the door.. :D

    Ya'all hyperventilate that we all got $400 back this year..

    To paraphrase Joe Biden, "Big F*cking Deal"...

    We haven't even begun to feel the bite that all the Wall Street and Bank and Car bail-outs is going to take out of our asses..

    Not to mention all the new taxes and increased costs that CrapCare is going to put on John Q Public.

    So, celebrate your $400 now... What ya gonna say when the government comes back around in 1-3 years demanding that back X10,000???

    $400 is just the government's way of bending you over in just the right and perfect position for what comes next..

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    GlynnisI -

    I tried to respond to you earlier, but my ISP was busy rebooting my server, so it didn't post, sorry. It's late at night, and I'm going to bed now (comments from this point on will be addressed tomorrow, folks), but I had to say to you: check out my Friday article, as I think you'll appreciate it.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale, for someone who claims to be an independent, you sure do repeat alot of Republican talking points.

    Quit being a corporate shill, Michale! Come over to the dark side!

    -David

    p.s. Sorry you feel that the previous post, which analyzed an AP article for content, was "railing" against the right. I feel that many people simply accept the conservative notion of a "liberal" media.

    I invite you to take a look for yourself, Michale. Try to find an article from the AP that is biased left. They often do a decent job on balance, but when they do skew, I've found they typically skew right.

    Or, you can just continue to repeat your claim endlessly that "It's a forgone conclusion that the MSM is in the bag for the Left."

    But I understand, Michale. Who needs to actually analyze anything, when you already know all the answers? ;)

    And I still think it's funny that people believe the argument that the media, largely owned by such "liberal organizations" as GE, Disney, Gannett, ClearChannel, NewsCorp, etc, is "liberal".

    Here's another good AP article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4uCqEf5jQUUFh6gvxGr2V4dEAlgD9F4ETRG2

    The authors basically only question Democratic reasoning in the article, while simply accepting the Republican statement that the bill would "simply continue government bailouts of Wall Street".

    Huh? I'm not sure how a fund that is paid for by the large financial institutions themselves is a government bailout. I would honestly like to hear why Republican think this. It doesn't sound to me like it would cost taxpayers anything.

    It kind of seems like a question that, I don't know, maybe some journalist might want to ask.

    I'd also like to know what Republicans would propose instead. How would they work to make sure this giant mess never happens again?

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really don't consider the AP "mainstream media". They are more a disseminater of news, not an actual "news media"..

    Maybe that's old-fashioned, but there it is..

    MSM to me is ABC, NBC, CBS, and your major newspaper outlets... NY TIMES, WA POST, LA TIMES, etc etc etc..

    As far as what Republicans would do instead of constantly bailing out failed organizations, I don't know..

    Don't really care..

    All I know is simply throwing taxpayer money into failed corporations (and major donors, incidentally) is NOT the way to go...

    "LET them die."
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said the above (and being I am home now) I went ahead and read your AP article..

    Huh? I'm not sure how a fund that is paid for by the large financial institutions themselves is a government bailout.

    Nothing in that article says that the fund is paid for by large financial institutions. Granted, I didn't read it super closely, as I find that kind of stuff boring.. But I couldn't find anything that says how the fund is created.

    Regardless, apparently Obama agrees with the Republicans on the fund, because he is ordering that aspect dropped..

    I fail to see the bias in the article..

    Irregardles of THAT, I am sure, if one looks hard enough and cheery picks enough data, one can find bits of bias here or there in favor of the Right.

    But, you would be VERY hard-pressed to find the type of Obama Love that has been in the media in the past. Nor can you find the type of vulgar media attacks against organizations like Move On and Code Pink that you find against the Tea Party movement. Finally, do you see the kind of Tina Fey ridicule against anyone from the Democrat side of things?? Nope, not even close... Even though there is PLENTY to ridicule. From whatshisname in a diaper to the attention-whore (A Lefty's word, not mine) to the Obama Cult Phenomenon... You don't see ANYTHING in the MSM ridiculing those ridicule-worthy people..

    As far as the Left Wing issues and agenda??? Don't EVEN get me started on that.. From CrapCare to Bank/Car/Wall Street Bailouts to AGW, the MSM is completely and 1000% in the bag for the Leftists issues and agenda, despite clear and OVERWHELMING evidence as to how bad that agenda would be for the country..

    So, these being the facts, how can ANYONE claim that the MSM is biased in favor of the Right??

    Talk about blinders... :D

    "Eyes open..."
    -Professor Forra Gegen, STAR TREK: VOYAGER, Distant Origin

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Nothing in that article says that the fund is paid for by large financial institutions.

    That's exactly it. The fund is not a "government bailout" as Republicans frame it. It's funded by the large financial institutions but that fact was conveniently left out. You'd think that might have been kind of important.

    This is very typical of much of the media - hiding facts that would contradict Republican/corporate talking points.

    A couple of the bigger ones right now:
    - No where do you see that Obama cut taxes. Remember, when Bush cut taxes - it was everywhere in the media.
    - Anything to counter this ridiculous "socialism" junk. Even most Republicans I know don't believe this; they just like to say it to make people angry.

    And, Michale, you haven't shown any facts. You've made a lot of assertions. But you haven't backed them up with any evidence.

    Why don't we start with a simple one. Find me a news article from the MSM as you call them that is biased in favor of "the left".

    I know you don't like to read things "super closely", but if you don't actually read the articles or think about the news, how do you make your decisions? Do you just listen to what others tell you?

    -David

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't we start with a simple one. Find me a news article from the MSM as you call them that is biased in favor of "the left".

    Before I can do that, you will have to define for me what you consider "Main Stream Media"...

    I'll assume you will agree that NBC, CBS and ABC are considered "Main Stream Media", right??

    So, my mission is to find articles from NBC, CBS, and ABC that are Left-Biased.. :D

    You sure you want me to list all that?? :D

    I know you don't like to read things "super closely",

    Only things that bore me. :D


    but if you don't actually read the articles or think about the news,

    Oh, I read articles all right.. Day in and day out.

    The difference between ya'all and me is that I read articles that report on things I may not want to hear...

    Ya'all {apparently} only read the articles that support your political POV.


    how do you make your decisions? Do you just listen to what others tell you?

    Ya mean like ya'all do when you form your opinions about the Tea Party??

    Despite all the FACTS that have been presented re: the Tea Party, ya'all still believe it's nothing more than an association of white rednecks who are nothing but racist homophobes...

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another example of Left Bias in the MSM..

    Do you find any examples of the afore mentioned media (ABC CBS NBC) reporting that Obama went and played golf because they had to cancel to trip to Poland??

    It's also the 32nd golf outing Obama has done in his presidency.

    Interesting that Obama has played more golf in 15 months than Bush played in his entire 8-yr presidency..

    But that never seems to get mentioned by the MSM.. They (and ya'all incidentially) would have been Bush-Bashing left and right if the roles were reversed, no??

    There's the bias right there..

    Ya'all (and the media) castigated Bush left and right, yet Obama get's a pass...

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    So far I have given you two perfect examples of the MSM bias in favor of the Left..

    Another perfect example would be the Birthers and their issues.. More MSM bias in favor of the Left..

    The bias is out there. One only needs to take off their Partisan/Party blinders to see it..

    It's a good thing that it's us independents who actually decide elections.. :D

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    ABC, CBS or NBC would work. Just one example is fine.

    And for the record, Michale, I believe there probably are examples out there. But I also believe they're going to be harder to find than you think.

    There is no "liberal media". But this idea of a "liberal media" is tremendously useful for conservatives looking to generate outrage. So they scream about it every chance they get.

    BTW- I looked and couldn't find any examples of ABC, CBS, or NBC or other mainstream media for that matter "bashing" Bush about playing golf.

    -David

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC, CBS or NBC would work. Just one example

    Here ya go...:D

    WaPo Promotes Maddow Special on How McVeigh Echoes in 'Rising Tide of Anti-Government Extremism'

    Time’s Klein: Beck, Palin Potentially Committing Sedition against U.S. Government; Heilemann Adds Limbaugh

    NBC Military Analyst Quits Network, Citing Left-wing Bias

    http://newsbusters.org/

    More examples in the next commentary... :D I know you only said "one", but there is so much to choose from..

    There is no "liberal media".

    Keep telling this to yourself over and over. Hay, you might even be able to believe it soon. :D


    But this idea of a "liberal media" is tremendously useful for conservatives looking to generate outrage. So they scream about it every chance they get.

    And the same is true for Liberals. Or did you forget about the so-called "Right Wing Conspiracy"?? :D

    BTW- I looked and couldn't find any examples of ABC, CBS, or NBC or other mainstream media for that matter "bashing" Bush about playing golf.

    That's because Bush quit playing golf early in his term as his way of supporting the troops. Many on the Left ridiculed THAT as well..

    Regardless, my point is, if the roles had been reversed and say it was Bush who played 32 games of Golf in his first 13 months of his presidency as opposed to Clinton who played 24 games in 8 years, you can bet that the Leftist Media and the Left would be all over that..

    Remember, bias is just what is reported.. Bias can also be what is NOT reported..

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    White NBC Reporter Confronts Black Man at Tea Party Rally: 'Have You Ever Felt Uncomfortable?'

    Hulse Lets Clinton Smear Tea Party Protests as Lighting Fuse for Next Oklahoma City Bombing

    Remember, bias is in what IS reported but also in what is NOT reported, as the Birther issues and the next two examples show....

    After More Than A Year, CBS 'Early Show' Does First Full Story on Tea Parties

    Networks Fail to Report on VAT Tax Since Volcker Call for Tax Increases

    Newsweek Slams 'Hate' from 'Antigovernment Extremists,' Links to Beck and Palin

    'Watch Your Words,' ABC Advances Clinton's Charge Anti-Obama Rhetoric 'Could Lead to Violent Acts'

    MSNBC Touts Bizarre Vanity Fair Piece on Republicans Costing Taxpayers Money by Opposing Spending

    The list goes on and on and on and on....

    Let me know if you would like anymore. :D

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    akadjian wrote:

    From your first set, I don't see any actual news examples.

    - Rachel Maddow's show is not news.
    - Time's Klein made his comments on the Chris Matthews show. Also not news.
    - And I couldn't find the link about the military analyst. But is this a surprise? That a military analyst, probably a conservative, thinks the media is liberal.

    It's no surprise that shows like Matthews and Maddow's are liberal. That's the nature of their show. Like Limbaugh or Hannity define their shows as conservative.

    But I don't see any news examples yet. Will look at your other examples later.

    -David

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you don't consider MSNBC a "news" organization?? :D

    Michale....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eajq0w_MsF8

    From the horse's mouth.. :D

    Michale......

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh the links just keep coming and coming and coming and coming. :D

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    akadjian wrote:

    One thing I should add. I think that people who work for news organizations may be more typically "liberal".

    But I'm really trying to look at what they write as "news". I think that it's just about impossible to write a "liberal" news story these days w/o a huge backlash.

    Arguing that reporters are liberal is a different argument than what I'm trying to make. Because the liberals aren't allowed to write anything that even remotely smacks of liberalism in the news.

    I think that's part of the reason it's so hard to find news with a liberal slant. But it's not too hard to find news w/ a conservative slant.

    Why? Because who's going to complain? Certainly not your boss who works for Disney or ClearChannel or GE or Gannett.

    This is a really interesting discussion though Michale. Thanks for sharing and I'm going to join you in your quest and see if I can actually find a news article that slants liberal to demonstrate the difference between what Newsbusters shows and an actual news story w/ a liberal bent.

    Cheers
    David

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can do this all day and all night. :D

    http://current.com/groups/election-2008/89250880_statistics-show-nbcs-liberal-bias.htm

    But I won't... :D

    Just one more..

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:
  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sounds like a plan to me...

    But again, let me remind you..

    You not only have to look at WHAT is being reported but also as what is NOT being reported..

    For example.. Look at all the coverage of the Bush National Guard papers...

    Then look at the coverage (and lack thereof) of the Birth Certificate issue...

    That is a clear cut case of media bias..

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This article is hilarious:

    http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-new-evidence-of-liberal-media-bias-november-a/

    Why? Conservatives who think there is a media "bias" are turning to networks such as FoxNews.

    This shows that what conservatives really want is not unbiased news. What they want is news that doesn't contradict their beliefs.

    This is a big difference from what they claim to want: unbiased news.

    Hilarious!

    -David

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's no surprise that shows like Matthews and Maddow's are liberal. That's the nature of their show. Like Limbaugh or Hannity define their shows as conservative.

    And yet, ya'all consider Fox News a Conservative Biased news organization, even though it's only their opinion shows that show a conservative slant..

    How is this any different than declaring that MSNBC is a liberal "news organization"???

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? Conservatives who think there is a media "bias" are turning to networks such as FoxNews.

    This shows that what conservatives really want is not unbiased news. What they want is news that doesn't contradict their beliefs.

    And how is this different from Liberals who turn to news organizations that don't contradict THEIR beliefs?? Hmmmmmmmm???

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't have it both ways, David..

    Either MSNBC is a news organization with a liberal slant.

    Or Fox News is a news organization that DOESN'T have a conservative slant.

    Michale....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    What a difference a week makes, eh?? :D

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/19/administration-tea-parties/

    Last week, the Obama Administration was ridiculing and attacking the Tea Party..

    NOW the Obama Administration is cozying up to the Tea Party, saying they are on the same side... :D

    So much for the idea that the Tea Party is a fringe movement, eh? :D

    {{Michale puts a little 'check' the -Yup, I Was Right- column..}}

    :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The difference is that the actual news on Fox is also biased. Not just Limbaugh etc. This is an easy one to show.

    30 seconds on FoxNews website found this article:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/19/republicans-question-timing-target-sec-case-goldman/

    This story is little but Republican talking points.

    It doesn't even talk about the case. You'd think even conservatives would be happy to see someone trying to hold Wall Street accountable.

    On MSNBC, it's the non-news shows that are biased. Again, show me a news story from MSNBC that is biased.

    -David

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Correction: And I guess Limbaugh is a bad example since he's not on Fox. Please replace in last post w/ Hannity or O'Reilly.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    30 seconds on NBCNEWS.COM

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36628585/ns/politics/

    30 seconds on abcnews.com


    Obama to Take Case for Financial Reform on the Road
    Republicans Unanimously Against Bill Going to the Senate Floor This Week

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/financial-reform-obama-case-us-senate-starts-debate/story?id=10412562

    This story is little but DP talking points.
    The stories is as much liberal propaganda as your FNC story is conservative propaganda.

    Do you have any factual errors in the news story?? Is the news story untrue??

    No to both questions in EACH example..

    What you seem to want to claim is that FNC only reports "news" that is unfavorable to the DP.. While that is a bogus claim, I could easily point out the reverse.

    Even if I were to agree that FNC has a conservative slant, here's the kicker.

    FNC is only ONE news organization..

    Match that against MSNBC/NBC, ABC, CBS, NY TIMES, TIME, NEWSWEEK, CNN, etc etc etc...

    So, you have ONE news organization that may have a conservative slant.

    Yet you have over half a dozen + news organizations that have a liberal slant...

    Correction: And I guess Limbaugh is a bad example since he's not on Fox. Please replace in last post w/ Hannity or O'Reilly.

    Hannity and O'Reilly are opinion shows. If I can't mention Maddow and Matthews, you can't mention Hannity and O'reilly.

    Can't have it both ways..

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:


    [31] Michale wrote:
    [Comment is awaiting moderation. Please forgive us for the delay.]

    Drat... I forgot and put more than one link in my comment...

    But, nice notice there, CW... :D Kudos...

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    MSNBC articles on the Tea Party.

    Thought some of these might have a liberal bias but I couldn't find one. The MSNBC news articles I found seem to give the TP a fair shake.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36555655/

    Will keep looking.

    BTW- I actually agree with you that I think some people on the left unfairly characterize the entire Tea Party as racist. But again, I haven't seen this in a news article or report.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I indicated above, if you want to go STRICTLY by the news itself, then MSNBC is no more liberal slanted than FNC is conservative slanted.

    Or are you REALLY saying that FNC slants Right and all other news organizations are un-biased and don't slant at all?

    Is THAT your claim??

    Michale...

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "Hey Mikey, I think he likes it. How about some more?" Tank, The Matrix

    This is fun. Your first MSNBC link. All this article does is state that Democrats have raised more money than Republicans. These are facts from disclosed data. Not sure how that articles biased one way or another.

    2nd link from ABC. This is just shoddy reporting. The whole story is just lazy. All the reporter does is repeat talking points from both parties. You can't really learn anything about the financial reform package from this article. Lazy journalism? Yes. Biased? I'm not sure how a story that doesn't do anything but repeat both sides talking points can be biased.

    Compare this to FoxNews headlines like this today "Faced with Tea Party, White House Blames Bush"

    What I'm claiming, Michale, is that the statement "the media is liberal" has very little evidence to back it up. It's just an assertion that is echoed everywhere by conservatives who then point to another conservative website like NewsBusters.com as proof.

    And when they say it enough, and say it through the media outlets that they own, it starts to sound like established truth.

    If you read the news, though, I think you'll find very little liberal.

    If you can find that news link, let me know. I'm still looking for a good one.

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I admit I've been remiss at answering comments, so here goes:

    Michale [8] -

    Um... "whatsisname in a diaper" is the very Republican Senator David Vitter from Louisiana. Sorry.

    The AP was taken over by a right-wing company a couple of years ago, too.

    Here's a hint: if looking for signs of left-wing bias, look at McClatchy, as they're the news source I find most free of right-wing bias. Just thought I'd help.

    [10] -

    Hey c'mon, give me some credit. I have always taken the Tea Partiers seriously here.

    [11] -

    So what was Obama supposed to do when the trip was cancelled? When you can prove that Obama played more golf than Eisenhower, then I'll be impressed. Heh. Or Ford, for that matter.

    [14] -

    What is it with golf today? Bush LIED when he swore off golf, look it up. He played plenty after his "promise." That's why it was a story. I'd rather have Obama slip off to play a game of golf now and again, then have Bush spend a RECORD-BREAKING TIME on vacation. Let's compare Bush and Obama on vacation time, shall we?

    [32] -

    Wow - the "comment awaiting moderation" text works? It's always kind of been in there, but never actually worked before my recent site code upgrade. So I'm surprised to hear that it is actually working the way it was supposed to -- learn something new every day! Woo hoo!

    There is a bug with the process, though. When unmoderated comments appear, if people post comments afterwards, and then later I approve the comments, it changes the comment numbers from that point on (since the comment, after moderation, appears in the right time sequence). Which makes comments like the one I'm writing -- which reference comment numbers -- tricky, I have to admit. Sorry, I'm working on the problem.

    akadjian and Michale -

    As for the so-called "liberal bias" of the news media, well, my take on it is that most journalists are fairly liberal in their private opinions. This is because most of them see themselves as "seekers of truth" and as we all know, reality has a liberal bias. But because of the incessant drumbeat of "liberal bias!" from the right wing, in the past 10 or 15 years, even quite liberal organizations have been bending over backward to include the conservative point of view, in a desperate attempt to be seen as "even-handed." This leads media to include conservative voices and opinons they never would have considered in the past. But it's gone a bit too far, because true liberal voices are shut out, in favor of centrist voices from the Left (compare how often Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold gets invited to Sunday morning shows, as opposed to, say, Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh). I've had editors of big-city metropolitan newspapers admit this to me -- "We carry more conservative voices in our op-ed columns, in order to balance our own left-of-center editorial column views."

    It's all in what is given airtime and what is left out. Michale, that "black man at the tea party" thing on NBC you've been quoting, for instance -- I agree that that was a cringe-worthy moment in the story, but if you watch the ENTIRE tea party segment, you'll find that after this part came a report from another NBC reporter on taxes which did nothing more than report Republican talking points ("47% of people PAID NO TAXES!!!") with absolutely ZERO mention of the FACT that Democrats had lowered almost everyone's income taxes this year, through the vehicle of the stimulus package. Dig the whole sequence out if you don't believe me. NBC Nightly News (with Brian Williams) leans slightly right -- to counteract the impression that the cable channel MSNBC leans to the left. It bugs me no end, but BriWi has the best ratings, so he must be acceptible to America as a result.

    But the whole issue is on the wrong scale, in my opinion. The media's not overtly right or left, it's overtly corporate in nature. And that's a MUCH bigger problem.

    I actually think what we're seeing is a return to the natural state of things -- Fox News included -- in American media and politics. In most of the history of our country, media has been overtly partisan. I don't have a problem with that, actually. I would just like to see better representation from some lefty media, that's all. Let's have righty media, lefty media, and centrist "bland as oatmeal" media! The more the merrier! Just, please, a better mix, that's all.

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Um... "whatsisname in a diaper" is the very Republican Senator David Vitter from Louisiana. Sorry.

    Uh... No.. That would be yer fav, the Honorable Al Franken.. :D And I have the picture to prove it! :D

    Hey c'mon, give me some credit. I have always taken the Tea Partiers seriously here.

    Yes you do. Credit where credit is due. But you are simply the exception that emphasizes the rule...

    So what was Obama supposed to do when the trip was cancelled?

    Oh, I dunno.. Maybe pay a visit to the Polish Embassy and sign the condolence book... Find a Polish neighborhood and commiserate with them over the loss of their leaders. A real leader would have done something relevant in lieu of attending the funeral.

    Leadership 101

    It just seems very crass to me to go on a fun golf outing because you were able to skip a funeral..

    When you can prove that Obama played more golf than Eisenhower, then I'll be impressed. Heh. Or Ford, for that matter.

    Well, let's see.. Eisenhower didn't have two wars to manage, a very real threat of terrorist attacks on US proper and an economy that was in the toilet and sinking deeper..

    Ford was a caretaker president and really doesn't count. :D

    Regardless, my point was and is, is that the Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Left hounded Bush incessantly for his "vacations" yet that same HANSH Left gives Obama a pass..

    Just pointing out the partisan hypocrisy.. :D

    What is it with golf today? Bush LIED when he swore off golf, look it up. He played plenty after his "promise." That's why it was a story. I'd rather have Obama slip off to play a game of golf now and again, then have Bush spend a RECORD-BREAKING TIME on vacation. Let's compare Bush and Obama on vacation time, shall we?

    I rest my case. :D

    I would just like to see better representation from some lefty media, that's all. Let's have righty media, lefty media, and centrist "bland as oatmeal" media! The more the merrier! Just, please, a better mix, that's all.

    It's the AIR AMERICA problem..

    News has become entertainment which is a business. And frankly, the American people don't want to hear or watch a bunch of Lefties telling them (the American people) how bad they are or how lazy or fat they are or how bad this country is..

    That's why Right Media sells and is more successful.

    That's why organizations like Air America fail and fail miserably..

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Still no link, Michale?

    Could it be because GE, Disney, Gannett, ClearChannel and the corporate media who own your MSM don't want to be associated w/ "liberal" content?

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200610310008

    And I'm ok with corporations not wanting to be associated w/ liberal content. That's their choice. But please don't tell me there's a liberal mainstream media and blame everything on it.

    -David

    "There is no spoon" - The Matrix

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    You choose "MEDIA MATTERS" as your example of non biased reporting!!!???

    Surely you jest... :D And it even shows the liberal bias of ABC news...

    It's a TWO-FER!!! :D

    Regardless of whether you want to admit it or not, NBC, CBS, ABC etc etc etc have as much liberal slant as Fox News has conservative slant.

    These are the facts. I gave you link after link after link showing the facts.

    One only has to read about how the liberal media portrays the Tea Party to see this to be the case.

    Of course, this assumes that one is objective and can look at things from a politically agnostic perspective.

    Michale....

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You sure are funny today. Guess you're right when you say you really don't like to actually read the news.

    Or you'd of seen that those links you sent don't really show liberal bias in the news.

    Or you'd have seen that most articles on the Tea Party in the corporate media are now doing little more than printing Tea Party talking points.

    And yes, though I wasn't using Media Matters as an example of non-biased reporting, now that you mention it, that article is non-biased.

    It's based on evidence and doesn't make any political claims other than that corporations have refused to advertise on a "liberal" program. Unlike newsbusters.org which has decided from the beginning that the media is liberal and then posts as many tenuous connections as possible.

    Kind of like how Republicans have already decided that any type of financial reform is going to be a "bailout". Even if Democrats remove the $50 billion fund that they initially stated they didn't like.

    It's amazing that people can be so easily misled just by saying it's a bailout over and over and over. Without any evidence.

    -David

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kind of like how Republicans have already decided that any type of financial reform is going to be a "bailout". Even if Democrats remove the $50 billion fund that they initially stated they didn't like.

    Uhhh, the quotes that I made against Obama's so-called "financial reform" come from Democrats, not Republicans.

    But, of course, it's NOT a Right vs Left issue, right?? :D

    As far as Media Matters go, NBC describes MM as a "liberal media watchdog."

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx

    So, forgive me if I kinda guffaw when you use a "liberal media watchdog" to argue against liberal media bias.. :D

    It's kinda like sending a Klingon to argue against brutality and carnage... :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya want more bias??

    The Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Leftist Media had a conniption fit over Bush and his Enron ties and donations...

    Now we come to find out that the donations from Goldman Sachs to Obama is more than SEVEN TIMES (let me repeat that for the cheap seats..) **SEVEN TIMES** that of Enron to Bush...

    And where is CBS, NBC or ABC calling Obama to task on this as they did for Bush and Enron?????

    {{{chiiiirrrpppp}}} {{{chhiiiirrrrppppp}}}

    Nuttin but the crickets...

    So, once again, we see that the LACK of reporting is ALSO media bias.. And it all favors Obama and the Democrats...

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Does that mean that Bush sold himself cheap?

    Ok. Kidding aside. Let me get this straight.

    Enron gave money to Bush and other conservatives and they helped deregulate the energy industry so Enron could do things like make lots of money off the state of California.

    Obama took money from Goldman Sachs employees and in exchange for that money is now pushing for regulation of the financial industry?!

    Enron campaign contributions were a story because lots of politicans looked like they were taking money in return for political favors - Democrat Gray Davis included.

    If Obama were trying to block the SEC suit or is doing something else for Goldman for this money, then it would be a scandal.

    Until then, it's a Republican talking point trying to associate Obama w/ Goldman.

    I miss the old Michale. The one who did more than just repeat the latest Republican talking points.

    -David

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    First off, I never repeat talking points..

    I simply point out logical and rational issues.

    If those happen to be "talking points" from the Right OR the Left, well then so be it..

    Secondly..

    The issue is not who sold himself cheap... The issue is why the Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Left was all up in arms about the Bush/Enron connection and is strangely silent about the Obama/Goldman Sachs connection.. Do you have an answer or are you just going to throw up more partisan smoke screens??

    Thirdly..

    Why is it that Goldman Sachs stocks are **RISING** after Obama announces his so-called regulation of the financial markets???

    The answer is simple...

    Like CrapCare, while the legislation is supposedly created to reign in and regulate the industry, it's actually a big boon for the specified industry..

    With CrapCare, the insurance companies get a shitload of new customers (to the tune of 360 BILLION dollars) and have absolutely NO REGULATION on how much they can charge all those new customers..

    Yea... CrapCare is REALLY effective in reigning in the Insurance Companies, eh??

    As to the financial markets, let's look at that.. It's pretty much "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... All the players that CAUSED the financial meltdown in the first place are the ones who are making up the new rules now.. And THOSE people are still protecting Wall Street at the expense of Main Street...

    Follow the money, David..

    And right now, ALL the money leads to Obama and the Democrats..

    I realize your partisan ideology won't allow you to point the finger at a fellow Democrat..

    But try... just TRY.. to look at things from the perspective of an AMERICAN... Not a Democrat or a Republican, but an AMERICAN..

    Your government is mortgaging your future and your children's future...

    Doesn't that piss you off even a little???

    Michale....

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "And right now, ALL the money leads to Obama and the Democrats."

    Michale, do you really believe this?

    Really?

    You would honestly say that Republicans never take any money from big business?

    It's all Democrats.

    And then you call me partisan?

    Seriously?

    And then you call me un-American because I disagree with you. Nice touch. You really are stealing from Republicans.

    Now if you were to say that corporations are shaping most politics today through the contributions of lobbyists, I'd agree with you.

    But just Democrats? C'mon. I don't even think Karl Rove would buy that.

    If Republicans care so much about financial reform, why are they refusing to allow debate on it?

    Obama has already shown that he's willing to compromise. You admitted it yourself in your own gloating sort of way.

    But I'm honestly curious, do you really believe it's just Democrats that take money from corporations?

    -David

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    You would honestly say that Republicans never take any money from big business?

    No, I am not saying that..

    What I AM saying is that WHEN the money leads to Republicans, the Left howl like banshees..

    When the money leads to Obama and Democrats it's...

    {{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}}

    ... from the Left.

    And, in the here and now, the money is leading to Obama and the DP'ers...

    And then you call me un-American because I disagree with you. Nice touch. You really are stealing from Republicans.

    I never called you "un American".. I simply asked that you BE an American first and a Democrat second..

    Now if you were to say that corporations are shaping most politics today through the contributions of lobbyists, I'd agree with you.

    OK, let's go there..

    Doesn't it piss you off that the Corporations are buying off the Democrats??

    You rail and rail against the GOP for the same thing, yet you fail to realize that corporations cannot buy off the DP if the DP refused to be bought..

    Why not simply concede the obvious fact..

    When it comes to being bought off by the corporations, there is no difference between the DP and the GOP. When it comes to selling out to big business, there is no difference between Obama and Bush..

    True or False??

    Obama has already shown that he's willing to compromise. You admitted it yourself in your own gloating sort of way.

    Obama's idea of "compromise" is, "we'll listen to what you have to say and then we will do what we want anyways."

    That's not compromise. That's dictating..

    But I'm honestly curious, do you really believe it's just Democrats that take money from corporations?

    Of course not..

    But the difference between you and I is that I rail against BOTH Parties for it.

    You seem to only find fault with the GOP and overlook all the transgressions of Obama and the DP'ers...

    You claim that the GOP is at fault for it, but when I point out that Obama & the DP'ers are even MORE guilty, you pooh-pooh it away as nothing but GOP talking points..

    Why is that??

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooopppss missed one..

    If Republicans care so much about financial reform, why are they refusing to allow debate on it?

    Because we have all seen in CrapCare how the DP'ers "debate" things...

    Why SHOULD the GOP be part of such grossly unconstitutional behavior??

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Whoa, easy there, Michale. No need for all the accusations.

    I share your anger w/ corporate lobbying. Remember, it was me who mentioned that both parties are guilty of influence from lobbyists.

    I never said "the GOP is at fault" or most of the other things you attribute to me. Maybe some "lefties" or "liberals" or "communists" you know said these things, but the point I was trying to make was simply that there is very little evidence for a "liberal media". A corporate media, yes. But not a liberal media. So please don't exaggerate my argument and say I'm blaming the GOP for everything under the sun.

    But, I'll set that aside for a second.

    So we both agree that corporate lobbying is an issue. It's interesting that this seems to be a grievance of both the "left" and folks such as the Tea Party. What to do?

    Well, I can't speak for you, but here is what I believe:

    - We have to restore government's role in ensuring a successful economy
    - We have to change our philosophy of government from one that focuses solely on those at the top to one that focuses on everyone

    Now which party's philosophy does this sound more like? If you said Democrats, you win the Barack Obama commemorative Nobel prize.

    But, but, but ... you say, are Democrats really doing these things? Or are they selling out to corporations?

    Good point. I believe they are doing what they can to get there. But it's going to take time. And it's going to take a huge public relations effort. And, ideally, it would take reform of the campaign financing system.

    But while I support Democrats, I am also working to help elect better Democrats. Better than the Harry Reids, better than the Ben Nelsons, better than the Blue Dogs. Democrats who truly believe in the goals I outlined.

    Oddly enough, the Tea Party is trying to do the exact same thing with the Republican party. They support any Republican, even liberal ones who won't acknowledge they exist like Scott Brown, but at the same time they also want to elect what they see as better Republicans.

    I disagree with the philosophy of the Tea Party. At their core, they seem to want nothing more than to continue to deregulate government. And that's why the Tea Party doesn't make sense to many people. Because they want to continue a strategy that got us into this financial crisis.

    So I've laid out some of my thoughts and why and how I hope to support current Democrats and also elect better Democrats. What's your strategy Michale? If you agree so much that corporate lobbying is an issue, what do you believe we should do to make it better?

    Cheers
    -David

    p.s. Your comment "Why SHOULD the GOP be part of such grossly unconstitutional behavior??" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about rules for debate. Maybe you're reading a different Constitution?

    The GOP is choosing to not be a part of any debate and deliberately trying to stop every agenda item of this administration for political gain in the next election. Is this your definition of being an American first?

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. And I do believe there's a difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party in terms of corporate lobbying influence.

    I'd use this analogy. With Democrats, lobbying money buys you a seat at the table. One seat among many. With Republicans, lobbying money buys you the table.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Republicans care so much about financial reform, why are they refusing to allow debate on it?

    The irony of this just hit me.. :D

    If the DP'ers care so much for true healthcare reform why did they circumvent EVERY civilized rule of the Senate, including debate, in order to give us CrapCare..

    You see, this is just my point.

    You rail against the GOP for not wanting to debate an issue, yet we are FRESH from CrapCare where Democrats used every low down and dirty and unethical trick in the book to insure that there was no debate on CrapCare...

    Once again, we see that there really isn't any difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You changed the subject. And railed against Democrats some more. But you still didn't answer the question:

    What's your strategy Michale? If you agree so much that corporate lobbying is an issue, what do you believe we should do to make it better?

    -David

Comments for this article are closed.